Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation. The description adds that previous endorsements remain recorded and future edits never change this endorsement, which is valuable immutable-state context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't specify what happens to existing endorsements from other signatories or the return format. Adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, prerequisite, and behavioral guarantees. Front-loaded with the core action. No waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 3 required parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and error conditions. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, more detail is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three parameters are undocumented except for their names and basic constraints (agree is const true, revision_id pattern). The description does not explain the meaning of revision_id, signatory_key, or the agree parameter beyond the implicit requirement to agree. Significant gap; description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('adopt') and resource ('exact revision under your existing signatory name'). The mention of 'existing signatory name' implies an account/signatory already exists, providing context. It differentiates from siblings like sign_accord or edit_agreement, though without explicit naming of alternatives. Not quite a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edit_agreement or revert_agreement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage ('Requires reading that text and agreeing') but doesn't state when to use this versus alternatives such as edit_agreement or sign_accord. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Context is somewhat implied through the mention of reading and agreeing, but lacks explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.